Build it Right

Build it Right
ii
Suite 602, 689 Abbott St.
Vancouver, BC, Canada
V6B 0J2
Address
lee@cambiaconsulting.co
www.cambiaconsulting.co
Email & Web
+1 778-877-8033
Phone
cambiaconsulting.co
Cambia
Consulting
Cambia Consulting
Build it Right
A Study on Implementing High-Frequency Rail/
High-Speed Rail in Canada
2023
Cambia
Consulting

Table of Contents
The Purpose of This Document 3
Executive Summary 4
Corridor Overview 10
Design Approach 18
Design Assumptions 20
Approach to Improvements 24
Cost Assumptions 28
Corridor Analysis 30
System Analysis 54
Total Cost Summary 56
HFR vs. HSR 60
Cost Control Measures 64
Complementary Projects 66
Final Words 72

Build it Right
Build it Right 2 3
Improving passenger rail and building High-Frequency Rail (HFR) or High-Speed Rail (HSR) in Canada is
an important undertaking that will shape the future of this country. If implemented successfully, it will help
millions of people each year connect with family and friends, conduct business and explore our country in
a clean, safe and efficient way. However, if we fail to employ the best design and construction practices,
HFR/HSR risks becoming an overbudget boondoggle that under-delivers in providing a quality experience
for passengers and may discourage future investments in passenger rail. It is critical that we get it right.
The goal of this report is to increase the likelihood that Canadians will enjoy a high-quality passenger rail
system by clearly articulating the challenges, tradeoffs and costs of building HFR and HSR in Eastern
Canada. It exists to help government officials to make better, informed decisions. It may also empower
bidding consortia in developing better proposals. The point is to assist all those involved so that Canadians
can get the best passenger rail product.
The
Purpose
of this
Document

Build it Right
Build it Right 4 5
The Federal Government is examining the feasibility of implementing High-Frequency Rail (HFR) or High-Speed Rail (HSR) from Toronto
to Quebec City. This system envisages to provide reliable passenger rail service to Eastern Canada and also brings passenger rail to
Peterborough and Trois Rivieres, large communities that currently lack rail service.
This study examines in detail possible HFR and HSR networks, their associated costs and travel times, important network design tradeoffs
and HFR/HSR should be implemented. The costs stated assume best planning and construction management processes are implemented
as is done in countries such as Italy and Spain. The HSR system would have a maximum operating speed of 320 kph and was designed
to meet specified travel time targets while minimizing capital costs. HFR would operate with a maximum operating speed of 160 kph and
would not require the construction of the new grade separations.
• HSR would achieve travel times of 2h57m between Toronto
and Montreal, 50m between Ottawa and Montreal and
1h26m between Montreal and Quebec City. HFR would
be considerably slower but with travel times to current rail
service of 4h27m between Toronto and Montreal, 1h20m
between Ottawa and Montreal and 2h16m between Montreal
and Quebec City.
• An HSR system from Toronto to Quebec City is expected
to cost $10.0 Billion with $189 Million in annual operating
costs. With a length of 853 km, this equates to a capital
cost of $11.8 Million per kilometre. This relatively low cost
can be achieved as a consequence of the area’s favourable
geography, prioritizing speed over gentle terrain as well as by
implementing best cost management practices.
• With a combined annual capital (5% interest rate over 30
years) and operating cost of $833 Million per year and 20
trains per day between Toronto and Montreal, this results in a
cost per passenger-km of $0.13. This equates to a breakeven
ticket price of $72 between Toronto and Montreal. Given
that VIA Rail typically charges $106 for a ticket between
these two cities, this suggests that HSR would be financially
sustainable and would remain so if costs were to increase
47%.
• Infrastructure costs can be further reduced by sharing urban
sections with regional rail and rapid transit projects. Such
projects can be carried out in all of the large cities served.
Such infrastructure sharing is estimated to reduce capital
costs by around $1 Billion and would reduce the costs of a
breakeven ticket from Toronto to Montreal to $66.
• HFR would cost $6.39 Billion with $122 Million in annual
operating costs. This equates to a capital cost of $8.02
Million per kilometre and a total annual cost of $531 Million
per year. A breakeven ticket from Toronto to Montreal would
cost $46.
• HSR would carry a premium of approximately 38% over HFR.
This is above the 25% premium passengers were willing to
accept according to a UK study but within the 50% premium
passengers were willing to accept in Spain. However, this 43%
premium does not account for the considerable additional
costs that would be required to upgrade an HFR system to
HSR at a later date. These additional costs were estimated
to amount to $2.1 Billion. If these costs are factored into the
comparison between HFR and HSR, the premium decreases
to only 13%, well below the threshold found in the UK study.
The clear conclusion from this study is that high-speed rail makes
sense. It makes sense even when putting aside its considerable
safety, economical and environmental benefits. It will make dollars
and cents if costs are kept down by adopting the past project
planning, tendering and construction management practices as well
as by sharing certain urban sections with local transit services. Most
importantly it makes sense to do it now rather than building a lower
speed network that will be later upgraded to high-speed rail.
Executive Summary
Key Findings

Build it Right
Build it Right 6 7
Key Recommendations
1
2
3
This includes bringing expertise in-house, dividing tenders in a way that fosters competition and provides redundancy,
itemizing contracts to help manage change orders and having officials whose sole purpose is to provide cost control.
Keep costs down by implementing best construction
planning, tendering and management practices
Infrastructure within urban areas can be built to benefit both intercity and local passenger rail services. This is particularly
beneficial as building in urban areas tends to be more expensive often requiring viaduct or tunnel construction.
Coordinating and connecting local and intercity services will enhance the utility of both, increasing ridership and
decreasing the use of less sustainable modes of transportation.
Coordinate with Local Transit Agencies so that
infrastructure use is maximized and costs are shared
Though HSR will be 43% more expensive than building HFR, building it later will cost an additional $2.1 Billion over
building HSR now. The fact that HSR already exists between Madrid and Barcelona, a corridor that shares many similar
characteristics yet was built over more difficult terrain further justifies building HSR now.
Build HSR Now
4
This study has identified seven sites with high development potential. Partnering with local transit would provide further
opportunities for leveraging development as it would increase the number of potential development locations and
enhance the development potential around shared stations.
Develop around HSR stations to further enhance
financial viability

Build it Right
Build it Right 8 9
This study of HFR/HSR details the principles for designing the passenger rail system, presents route alignment
and phasing options and cost estimates based on a parametric cost analysis that assumes best practices in
project management, construction and design. However, in order to produce a report of value that could inform
the current HFR/HSR process, certain elements were deemed out of scope:
• This study does not include detailed design of stations, grade separations, bridges, culverts and other
pieces of infrastructure. In most cases, parametric cost assumptions were used to create repeated
infrastructure and which were then applied to fit the local geography. For estimating certain costs such as
utility relocations and property acquisition, a conservative value was used.
• Projected ridership was not estimated in detail. Basic projections were used to determine a likely operation
scenario in order to estimate operating costs and cost-per-passenger-km. A thorough examination and
application of transportation pricing elasticity was deemed out of scope.
• Projected alignments and infrastructure not fully optimized. When studying HFR/HSR, best efforts were
made to find the best, lowest cost solution for each option. However, these efforts were not exhaustive and
opportunities for further cost optimization were identified in the course of producing this study.
This study should be used to inform future discussion and analysis of HFR/HSR. The limitations of this
document can and should be addressed in further studies of HFR/HSR in Eastern Canada.
Proponents
Lee Haber is a transportation planner, engineer and
founder of Cambia Consulting. He is also currently
serving as the Engineering Director for the Urban
Robotics Foundation and the Technical Lead for
MVX, an organization developing a regional rail
vision for Metro Vancouver. Prior to focusing on rail
planning, Lee worked as a Smart Mobility Planner at
TYLin.
Lee Haber
Cambia Consulting
Limitations of this Document

Build it Right
Build it Right 10 11
Corridor Overview
Toronto to Ottawa
The corridor between Toronto and Quebec City that would be served by HFR/
HSR extends approximately 800 km and is the mostly densely-populated region
of Canada. With a population of approximately 13.3 million, it contains 4 of the
7 largest metropolitan areas in the country, including its two largest: Toronto
and Montreal. In terms of population and length, the corridor is comparable to
the Madrid - Barcelona corridor which already has high-speed rail and boasts a
population of around 13 million.
However, unlike Spain and many other parts of the world that already have
high-speed rail, the terrain for this corridor is relatively gentle. The corridor
does require traversing through mountains nor does it contain any significant
elevation changes (the highest station, Peterborough, is only 193 m above
sea level). The most significant challenge geographic challenge would be the
crossing of a few major rivers, particularly channels of the St. Lawrence River
near Montreal.
The corridor section from Toronto to Ottawa is approximately 375 km. Existing VIA Rail service boasts 8 trains per day on weekdays, 7
trains on weekends and utilizes the Kingston, Brockville and Smith Falls rail subdivisions. However, the HFR Request for Qualifications
specifies that rail service must be provided to Peterborough. This would involve providing rail service along a new corridor primarily along
the CPKC Havelock, CPKC Belleville and VIA Smith Falls subdivisions with a currently abandoned section between Havelock and Perth. New
rail would need to be built for this section and could utilize the old rail alignment (currently used by the Trans Canada Trail), Highway 17 or
some combination of the two.
Within Toronto, HFR/HSR would likely utilize the abandoned GO Bala
subdivision, the CPKC Belleville Subdivision and the CPKC Havelock
Subdivision passing through mostly industrial areas. The corridor
passes by the future Leslie Station on the Eglington Crosstown,
enabling a possible future connection. Passenger rail service would
have to travel parallel to heavy freight rail traffic, especially on the
Belleville subdivision section north of the CPKC Toronto Yards.
Though the high costs of projects like
California’s high-speed rail seem to suggest
otherwise, constructing high-speed rail in and
of itself is not magically expensive. Much
of the premium of high-speed rail projects
comes from difficult terrain that necessitates
the construction of costly civil works such as
tunnels and viaducts. If the terrain does not
require such civil works, one can expect a
much lower capital cost.
Unlike Japan or the Northeast Corridor of
the United States, most of the land between
population centres is low-density farmland,
making new corridor realignments less
challenging. In addition, the corridor has
several relatively-straight existing rail corridors,
making the construction of high-speed rail
even more straightforward.
The effect of geography
on construction costs
cannot be overstated.
Toronto Urban Area

Build it Right
Between Toronto and Peterborough, the corridor would likely
utilize the CPKC Havelock division for most of its length. The
terrain between Toronto and Peterborough is characterized
by gently rolling hills, farmland and woodland. The CPKC
Havelock corridor has several sections with tight curves where
realignments would be required to enable high-speed rail
service.
Toronto to Peterborough
The CPKC Havelock corridor continues from Peterborough
to Havelock with terrain similar to that between Toronto and
Peterborough. East of Havelock, the CPKC Havelock corridor ends
with the Trans Canada trail continuing along the abandoned rail
corridor. The terrain becomes more wooded with a greater number
of swamps and fewer farms, though relatively gentle. Some tight
curves exist on the abandoned rail corridor and new straighter
alignments would be needed to enable higher speeds.
East of Tweed, the terrain becomes more challenging with a greater
number of lakes, swamps, hills and rocky terrain. The abandoned
rail corridor and Highway 17 are quite windy through this section
and enabling higher speeds through here would likely be expensive.
West of Perth, the terrain becomes smoother with farmland being
the primary use. The CPKC Belleville corridor is relatively straight
with a tight curve through the Town of Perth. The corridor continues
east to Smith Falls. In order to travel to Ottawa, passenger trains
would need to continue along the VIA Smith Falls corridor. This
corridor is mostly straight and travels through swamps and
agricultural land until it reaches Ottawa.
Peterborough to Ottawa
The VIA Smith Falls subdivision travels through residential
Barrhaven with a short agricultural section before reaching
Ottawa-proper. Through the City of Ottawa, the corridor crosses
the Rideau River, Walkley Rail Line and continues north utilizing
the VIA Beachburg subdivision. Unlike within the Toronto
Urban Area, passenger rail movements do not compete with
significant freight traffic volumes. This section to the train
station is characterized by residential development on one side
and relatively low-density land uses on the other side.
Ottawa Urban Area

Build it Right
OttawatoMontreal
The corridor section from Ottawa to Montreal is approximately 180 km. Due to its existing straight corridors and gentle terrain, it is expected
that this should be the least expensive section for the construction of high-speed rail. Existing VIA Rail service boasts 8 trains per day
on weekdays, 7 on weekends between Toronto and Montreal and 5 trains per day on weekdays and 4 or weekends between Ottawa and
Montreal. Current service utilizes the VIA Alexandria, CN Kingston and CN Montreal subdivisions.
From the existing VIA Rail train station, the VIA Alexandria corridor travels southeast through industrial land. Most of the land between
Ottawa and Montreal is characterized by mostly relatively flat, low-density agricultural land with occasional forests and swamps.
From Ottawa to Casselman, the VIA Alexandria corridor is mostly straight, making it ideal for high-speed rail. However, heading southeast
from Casselman, it becomes far more windy, with several tight curves. Approximately 10 km to the south, the soon-to-be-downscaled CPKC
Winchester corridor runs parallel and is mostly straight. Both corridors cross near the Town of Beaujeu.
From Beaujeu, the VIA Alexandria corridor continues southeast and joins the congested CN Kingston corridor. The CPKC Winchester
corridor continues east where it joins the CN Kingston corridor near the City of Vaudreuil Dorion.
Within the Greater Montreal Urban Area, the CPKC Vaudreuil and CN Kingston subdivisions run parallel with mostly empty
land separating both corridors. Exo Vaudreuil regional rail and VIA Rail service utilize both the CPKC Vaudreuil and CN
Kingston respectively. Residential areas border large sections of these corridors, however, they are separated from the
corridor by parallel streets or Autoroute 20. North of Lachine, both corridors separate with the CPKC corridor continuing
the Lucien L’Allier and the CN corridor running parallel to the south through to Gare Centrale. The CN Montreal corridor is
mostly wide enough to accommodate additional tracks, though some sections are narrow and may require rail relocation
or the construction of viaducts.
Montreal Urban Area

Build it Right
The corridor section from Toronto to Ottawa is approximately 280 km. Existing VIA rail service consists of 5 trains
per day on weekdays, and 4 trains on weekends travelling along a southern route utilizing the Drummondville and
Bridge subdivisions. However, the HFR Request for Qualifications specifies that rail service must be provided to
Trois Rivieres. This would involve providing rail service along a new corridor primarily along the OGR Trois Rivieres
subdivision with the Adirondack/Parc and St. Laurent subdivisions as possible options within the Montreal Urban
Area.
Montreal to Quebec
There are several different corridors that could be used to accommodate passengers travelling from Montreal
to Trois Rivieres. The most logical of these are the CPKC Adirondack/Parc subdivisions and the CN St. Laurent
subdivisions. In addition to freight movements, the CPKC corridors are currently utilized by the Exo St. Jerome
regional rail line. Both CPKC subdivisions travel through a mixture of residential and industrial areas and are wide
enough to accommodate additional tracks, though contain several tight curves. Both are fully double-tracked.
Like the CPKC subdivisions, the CN St. Laurent subdivision travels through a mixture of residential and industrial
areas and accommodates Exo regional rail service. It is straighter for more of its length and contains both single-
tracked sections. Both CPKC and CN corridors have heavy freight movements for parts of their length.
Montreal Urban Area
Corridors originating from the CPKC Parc Subdivision
and CN St. Laurent subdivision converge near the Town
of L’Ephiphanie. The OGR Trois Rivieres subdivision
continues east along a mostly straight corridor through
relatively low-density farmland with a few moderate
bends. It is anticipated that the construction of high-
speed rail through this section should be relatively
straightforward.
Montreal to Trois Rivieres
From the site of the old Trois Rivieres station, the OGR
Trois Rivieres corridor crosses the Saint-Maurice River.
Like the section between Montreal and Trois Rivieres,
the section between Trois Rivieres and Quebec City
travels mostly on straight sections through farmland,
though with a greater number of sharp bends.
Anticipated slow sections exist near Port-Neuf, Pont
Rouge and west of Quebec City. Near Quebec City,
the corridor runs approximately 1.5 km south of Jean
Lesage Airport (YQB).
Trois Rivieres to Quebec City
Within Quebec City, the OGR Trois Rivieres Subdivision
continues east through mostly industrial land. It joins
the Bridge Subdivision near Autoroute Henri-Bourrassa.
The Bridge Subdivision continues northeast and then
bends sound to Gare du Palais travelling through a
mixture of residential and industrial areas.
Quebec City Area

Build it Right
Design Approach
The goal of any project should be to maximize its benefits while minimizing its costs. The way this
is done for transit projects is by maximizing passenger convenience. Every benefit of passenger rail
comes from maximizing passenger convenience. Too often passenger rail systems are designed
solely with minimizing costs in mind, often severely compromising passenger convenience. If
passenger rail service is reliable, frequent, fast and well-connected to the local transit network, more
people will use it and fewer people will drive or fly, which will in turn reduce GHG emissions, other
forms of pollution and vehicular crashes.
However, as much as possible should be done to reduce costs while maximizing passenger
convenience. Costs can be minimized by reducing the number of civil works required by maximizing
speed where the terrain is favourable. Where costly infrastructure is required, its utility should be
maximized by sharing its use with other rail services such as regional rail.
Though there are short-term financial and political benefits for incremental implementation, this
should be planned carefully in order to minimize building redundant infrastructure. After all, it does
not make to upgrade a section for High-Frequency Rail if it will simply be abandoned when HSR is
implemented. Redundant sections can also be minimized if they can be repurposed by another rail
service in later phases.
Design Goals and Strategies
Maximize Passenger Convenience Minimize Costs
Connectivity with Local Transit Maximize Speed on Favourable Terrain
Reliability Through Dedicated Tracks Sharing Infrastructure with Regional Rail
Higher Speeds Minimizing Redundant Construction
As much as possible should be done
to reduce costs while maximizing
passenger convenience
“
”

Build it Right
Rolling Stock Characteristics
Propulsion 25 kV 50 Hz AC
Maximum Length 10 Cars - 250 m
Cross Section Envelope 3.5 m x 4 m
Capacity 750 passengers
Maximum Speed
Diesel: 200 kph
Electric: 320 kph
Acceleration 0.72 m/s2
Maximum Cant Deficiency 150 mm
High-speed rail will be electrified to the industry standard of 25 kV 50 Hz AC. Though passenger trains can be
much longer than 250 m, this length is within the practical limits of several stations along the network (particularly
Peterborough). It is also assumed that only single-deck trains will be used as this reduces tunnelling and trench
costs. These trains will have a capacity of 750 passengers and with higher frequencies, there will easily be
sufficient capacity to accommodate future demand.
High-speed rail trains are assumed to have a maximum operating speed of 320 kph as only a few planned and
current systems have trains that operate at higher speeds. Both high-speed rail and diesel-powered trains are
assumed to have an average acceleration of 0.72 m/s2 up to their maximum operating speeds. All passenger
trains are assumed to have a standard maximum cant deficiency of 150 mm.
Track Characteristics
Maximum Grade Change
General: 2%
Exceptional: 4%
Minimum Track Separation
Between high-speed tracks: 4 m (centre-to-centre)
Between HSR and freight: 16 m (centre-to-centre)
Track Cant
Dedicated Passenger: 180 mm
Shared with Freight: 80 mm
The figures above are based on best high-speed rail design practices from around the world. Higher grades reduce
grade separation costs but increase energy costs. A maximum grade of 2% was used when designing most of the
proposed rail network. This grade is within the long-distance braking limits of high-speed trains travelling at 320 kph
and is within the limits of freight trains. Exceptional grades of a maximum grade of 4% were used where difficult
terrain was encountered or in urban areas where a grade separation over a short distance necessitated a steeper
grade.
In order to minimize aerodynamic disturbance and maintain safety, high-speed train tracks need to be adequately
spaced from each other and from tracks with active freight movements. A minimum of 4 m centre-to-centre is used
between passenger rail tracks and 16-m centre-to-centre spacing with protective berm is used between passenger
rail and active freight rail tracks. (Where this spacing requirement cannot be met, trains must slow to less than 160
kph or a barrier wall must be installed).
Curved sections that will be exclusively used by passengers are designed to a steeper cant in order to allow for trains
to travel at higher speeds on tighter curves. Freight trains cannot travel on these steeper cant sections as this would
risk damaging them. On curves to be shared with freight movements, a cant of 80 mm is assumed.
Note: Determining the condition of the existing track was deemed beyond the scope of this study. Track for HFR/
HSR has specific requirements when it comes to seamless track, ballast and cant/superelevation. It would not be
correct to assume these conditions already exist with the existing track. Therefore, this study assumes that all
existing tracks and bridges will need to be rebuilt in order to accommodate HFR/HSR.
Design Assumptions

Build it Right
Freight Corridor Traffic
Section Rail Subdivision Assumed Freight Traffic
Toronto - Ottawa
GO Bala None
CPKC North Toronto High
CPKC Havelock Low
CPKC Belleville Moderate
VIA Smith Falls Low
VIA Beachburg None
Ottawa - Montreal
VIA Alexandria None
CPKC Winchester Moderate
CPKC Vaudreuil High
CN Montreal High
Montreal - Quebec City
CPKC Adirondack High
CPKC Parc Moderate
OGR Trois Rivieres Low
Bridge Moderate
Much of the proposed HFR/HSR network will use former or existing freight rail corridors. The alignment, design of
grade separations and ultimately the cost of the system is highly dependent on the level of freight traffic.
On corridors where freight rail traffic is expected to moderate or greater (more than 2 (two) trains per day), HFR/
HSR must run on separate tracks, separated from the freight tracks through lateral separation, vertical separation
or a barrier wall. This is the case for most of the rail corridors that run through urban areas. For corridors where
freight traffic is expected to be low (less than two trains per day), HFR/HSR and freight can use the same tracks
but not concurrently. Freight traffic movements will take place during the night after HFR/HSR operations have
finished, similar to other systems around the world.
Grade Separations
Embankment/Trench Slope 1:1.5
Clearance
Over Vehicular Traffic: 5 m
Over Heavy Rail Traffic: 6.5 m
Longitudinal Slope
Rail: 2%
Road: 6%
Crossing Length
Short: 8 m
Normal: 15 m
Long: 15 m
Grade separations are necessary for passenger trains to operate at speeds greater 160 kph in Canada. These can
be either in the form of an overpass supported by an embankment or an underpass within a trench. Depending on
what is most economical, the rail line or the crossing road can be made to separate from the other. For the purposes
of this study, most of the grade separations have been made with rail separating from the road surface as this is
generally less disruptive and likely less costly.
Stations
In Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City, passenger rail stations already exist and would require minor
renovations at most in order to accommodate HFR/HSR. However, at a minimum, three new stations would be
needed in order to serve Peterborough, Trois Rivieres and Jean Lesage Airport. Most of these stations will be at
ground level, however, due to topography and the flight paths, the Jean Lesage Station will likely be underground.
In order to keep costs down, it is essential that stations are standardized as much as possible. However, station
design is heavily influenced by site geometry and anticipated rail operations. Therefore, station design needs to be
flexible. It is beyond the scope of this study to specify station design in detail.
Stations should offer a pleasant and convenient experience for passengers. As with most VIA Rail platforms,
passengers should be able to access all platforms having to cross tracks. Therefore, underpasses/overpasses will
be needed along with escalators and elevators for accessing them. Where feasible, stations should have passing
tracks to allow express trains to pass through unhindered. Station waiting areas should be climate-controlled and
platform edge doors should be considered despite their relatively high cost.
Minimum Platform Length 250 m
Platform Width 3.5 m
Minimum Number of Over/Underpasses 1

Build it Right
Approach to Improvements
Increasing Frequency and Reliability
The impetus for HFR/HSR is not only to reduce travel times but make rail travel more frequent and reliable. The only way
to do this is to provide passenger rail service with dedicated tracks (or tracks where passenger rail has clear priority over
freight movements).
Dedicated tracks can be built on new corridors or on existing corridors parallel to existing tracks. In the latter case, there
must be protection measures to ensure that derailments of passenger or freight trains affect the other. This can be
achieved through lateral spacing, elevation or the use of barrier walls.
Building dedicated tracks can be challenging in urban areas as the need for tracks parallel to busy freight traffic is often
paired with significant space constraints. In some cases, space can be freed up by relocating temporary freight rail
storage, however, where this is not possible, the use of viaducts or tunnels may be required.
Disclaimer
As previously mentioned in the Design Assumptions, it is a mistake to think that existing tracks (most often
designed for freight traffic) can simply be repurposed for passenger train use. It would be a mistake to perceive
grade separations or geometry realignments in order to increase speed as ‘upgrades’ as this perception assumes
that there is an existing rail line to upgrade. Even the base case scenario of building a 160-kph-maximum HFR
network will require significant investment as much of the infrastructure will likely need to be rebuilt.
Speed Progression
Speed Factors Limiting Speed
160 kph
• Level Crossings
• 900 m Radius Curves (Dedicated)
200 kph
• Diesel Propulsion
320 kph
• HSR Rolling Stock
• 5050 m Radius Curves (Shared)
Note: Dedicated tracks = 180 mm cant, Shared tracks = 80 mm cant
Every level of increased speed requires additional levels of investment. Increasing the top speed from 160 kph to 200 kph requires
grade separations and curves with a radius greater than 1400 m. Despite the relatively small increase in speed, this is often the greatest
investment required.
Increasing the top speed from 200 kph to 320 kph requires electrification, high-speed rail rolling stock and curves with a radius greater
than 3550 m. Building for high speed through difficult terrain can be particularly costly as extensive viaducts and tunnelling will likely be
required. (Tunnels are a particular concern as they will need to be even wider and require special treatments in order to mitigate the ‘piston
effect’.)
Barriers to Increasing Speed
When trying to find the best solutions for HFR or HSR it is important to understand what limits speed. Having this
knowledge can prevent making poor investments such as removing grade crossings for a section of track that is limited
to 160 kph because of its tight curves.

Build it Right
Approach to Improving Slow Sections
Achieving competitive travel times will require improving the top speed of certain slow sections of preferred rail
ROWs. However, this should be considered carefully as costs can quickly escalate.
Below is a recommended sequence of actions to take when improving a slow alignment.
• Do nothing. It may not be necessary nor make sense to upgrade a certain section of track. This is especially
true of slow sections in urban areas where the cost of upgrading may be high and time reduction benefits
may be minimal.
• Grade separation. This allows trains to travel faster than 160 kph. If using an existing rail corridor, this option
requires little property expropriation and demolition.
• Curve broadening. Faster trains require broader curves. Trains travelling at 320 kph require a turning radius
of at least 3550 m. Curve smoothing upgrades should be carefully considered as the number of civil works
required can be quite significant.
Travel Time Targets
Designing an HFR/HSR system requires making tradeoffs between speed and cost. Measures that improve
speed usually come with increased capital costs.
In order to identify to what extent corridor improvements are needed, it is necessary to establish travel time
targets. Meeting certain travel time targets is necessary in order for rail to be competitive against flights
and vehicular trips. For example, achieving a sub-3-hour travel time between stations has been shown to be
necessary in order to gain a market share of at least 50% vs. flying. Achieving travel times below the target travel
time may prove costly and may only offer diminishing returns.
The table below shows current travel times as well as target times for high-speed rail. Times were measured
using Google Maps at 12:00 PM on a Wednesday. Transit times may include a mixture of rail and bus service.
Target HSR times are based on Alstom’s 2022 presentation.
Origin Destination
Min. Vehicle
Time
Min. Transit
Time
Target HSR
Time
Toronto Peterborough 1h25m 2h51m 40m
Toronto Ottawa 4h10m 4h32m 2h10m
Toronto Montreal 5h00m 5h08m 3h00m
Toronto Quebec City 7h51m 9h35m 4h40m
Ottawa Montreal 1h50m 1h56m 50m
Montreal Trois Rivieres 1h30m 2h26m 40m
Montreal Quebec City 2h30m 3h35m 1h40m
It is important to consider the total trip time when comparing rail and vehicular travel times. Rail trips also
require trips travelling to and from stations whereas vehicular trips are usually door-to-door. Therefore, station-
to-station rail travel times often need to be significantly lower than vehicle times in order to be competitive. This
is the case with all the target trip times, with most of them being at least 40% less than equivalent vehicle trip
times.
HFR/HSR travel times were estimated using the vehicle characteristics, track limitations and an operational
buffer of 7%. Station dwell times were assumed to be 1 minute.

Build it Right
The tables below indicate the elements used for building an HFR/HSR network and their respective costs. The
purpose is to not only show the basis for the final cost estimate but to illustrate the basis for design designs. For
example, grade separations requiring at least one retaining while are significantly more expensive than those with
them. Therefore, a slight realignment that eliminates the need for one would be a worthwhile tradeoff.
To the trained observer, the listed costs may appear low. That is the point. These cost assumptions assume that
measures have been taken to counter the significant construction cost escalation that has taken place in North
America in recent years. (These measures are explained in the Cost Control Measures section.
At-Grade (Double Track) 2.60
At-Grade (Single Track) 2.10
Viaduct (Double Track) 35.5
Viaduct (Single Track) 19.7
Cut-and-Cover Tunnel (Rural) 49.1
Cut-and-Cover Tunnel (Urban) 67.8
12 m Diameter TBM (Less than 200 kph) 58.3
9 m Diameter TBM (Less than 200 kph) 47.2
SEM Tunnel Double Track 44.7
Steel Bridge (Double) 125
Embankment (1.5 m to 9.0 m) 2.60 - 12.0
Trench (1.5 m to 6.0 m) 2.60 - 5.40
Barrier Wall with Sound Absorption
(Double)
6.00
Barrier Wall with Sound Absorption (Single) 3.00
Deep Consolidation Treatment 10.1
Double Chain Link Fence 0.10
Paved Road (5 m) 0.32
Existing ROW Acquisition 0.81
New or Parallel ROW Acquisition 0.41
Detailed derivations of cost assumptions are available upon request.
Civil Works (Point) Cost per Unit ($M)
Fluted Tunnel Portal 0.42
Portal Provisional Works 1.11
Tunnel Emergency Exit 4.00
Underground Station 100
Surface Station 20
Grade Separations (2%) Cost per Unit ($M)
Without Retaining Walls 1.73 - 4.82
One Retaining Wall 8.37 - 12.4
Two Retaining Walls 10.0 - 13.4
Systems Cost per Unit ($M)
Electrification - Overhead (Double) 1.10
Electrification - Overhead (Single) 0.50
Electrification - Tunnels 2.90
Signalling (ERTMS 2) 1.12
Cost Assumptions

Build it Right
Corridor Analysis
Findings and Recommendations
Toronto to Ottawa
The section from Toronto to Ottawa spans 396 km with almost all of the alignment existing at-grade. It
is projected that 4 (four) new stations would be built: two in the Toronto area, one in Peterborough and
one in Barrhaven. Most of the recommended alignment follows the CPKC Havelock, CPKC Belleville
and VIA Smith Falls subdivisions as well as Trans Canada Trail between Havelock and Perth. 3.95 km
of new track will be built connecting the CPKC Belleville and VIA Smith Falls subdivisions, allowing
trains to travel smoothly between Toronto and Ottawa.
Section Summary
HSR Cost Estimate: $4.53 B # of Stations: 6
Initial Trains per Day: 20 # of Transit Hubs: 6 (3 future)
Network Length: 396 km New Track Length: 783 km
At-Grade Length: 390 km Walled Length: 18.5 km
Viaduct Length: 5.11 km Rail Relocation Length: 21.2 km
Tunnel Length: 0.46 km
Road Relocation
Length:
0.46 km
# of Bridges: 29 Total Bridge Length: 0.90 km
# of Single Overpasses: 25 Total Overpass Length: 2.17 km
# of New Grade
Separations:
155
# of Alignment
Improvements:
39 Projected Speed Breakdown
Speed 0 - 160 kph 160 - 200 kph 200 - 320 kph 320 kph
Length 97.6 km 18.4 km 90.0 km 200 km
Percent 24.6% 4.6% 20.4% 50.5%
In order to achieve a projected travel time of 2 hours and 5 minutes, trains will need to travel at a top speed of 320 kph for approximately half
of the alignment’s length. Improved alignments between Toronto and Tweed allow trains to meet the target travel times without requiring
costly improvements through the difficult terrain between Tweed and Perth.

Build it Right
Within the Toronto Area
The recommended alignment begins at Union Station and heads east, sharing tracks with existing VIA and GO trains. Before the Don River,
the alignment turns north onto the GO Bala Subdivision and then crosses the Don River utilizing an abandoned rail single-track corridor.
Double-tracking this section was deemed costly and unnecessary as it would still permit a capacity of 4 trains per hour, far above long-term
demand projects. The alignment would pass under the CPKC Belleville subdivision and then remerge parallel to the north of it. This part of
the alignment could be potentially shared with a future GO Midtown Line. Trains along this segment would travel no faster than 135 kph.
The alignment continues to Eglington Avenue where a new transit hub, Uptown Toronto, would be built. Passengers would be able to transfer
to and from Leslie Station on the Eglington Crosstown to HFR/HSR services. This transit hub would greatly enhance the accessibility of
HFR/HSR to those who live and work in the northern neighbourhoods of Toronto.
From Uptown Toronto, the alignment continues
northeast along the CPKC Belleville subdivision.
Barrier walls with sound attenuation will permit
trains to travel at over 200 kph along this section.
A future station, North Toronto, is planned near
Sheppard Avenue which would serve as a transit
hub with a future extension of the Sheppard
Subway. This station would greatly improve HFR/
HSR access to those who live in Northern Toronto
and the York Region.
From North Toronto, the alignment continues
northeast to the CPKC North Toronto Yard. The
alignment would then bypass the railyard on
dedicated tracks and travel above Markham Road.
The alignment continues northeast along the
CPKC Havelock subdivision. Short, walled sections
would permit vehicles to accelerate up to 240 kph.
Toronto - Ottawa
Alignment Description
Toronto to Peterborough
Northeast of Toronto, trains would travel through an 18-km slow section between 125 and 195 kph. (Permitting higher speeds along
this section was deemed uneconomical). Continuing east, trains would accelerate to 320 kph and would continue at this speed until
approaching Peterborough. Within Peterborough, trains would slow down to less than 160 kph and would stop at a new station Aylmer and
George Streets.

Build it Right
Peterborough to Barrhaven
EastfromPeterborough,trainswouldaccelerateto320kph.Thesehigherspeedswouldbeenabledthroughseveralalignmentimprovements.
The alignment bypasses Havelock and continues east along the abandoned railway/Trans Canada trail alignment. Trains would continue at
320 kph until they approach Tweed where they would travel through the town at 135 kph along an elevated section. Trains would continue
at 125 kph through the windy section east of the town and then accelerate to 320 kph along a 16-km straight section. As the alignment
approaches Highway 7, trains would decelerate to 125 kph.
Toronto - Ottawa
Through this challenging section with many curves and rocky terrain, trains would travel at 125 kph. This slow section would continue for
67 km and obviates the need for grade separations. Through Sharbot Lake, trains would run a slightly offset alignment that would reduce
disruption between trains and residents.
Approximately 14 km west of Perth, the alignment straightens out and trains would accelerate up to 320 kph. The alignment would continue
along the CPKC Belleville subdivision and trains would decelerate to 150 kph as they travel through Perth. Trains heading east would
accelerate up to 320 kph and then turn northeast along a new connecting track. Trains would then connect northeast along the VIA Smith
Falls subdivision until decelerating and stopping at Barrhaven Station. The existing Fallowfield station would be relocated to Greenbank
Road, a location that far better serves the population of Barrhaven.

Build it Right
37
Build it Right 36
Within the Ottawa Area
From Barrhaven, trains would continue northeast along the VIA Smith Falls subdivision and would accelerate up to 215 kph. A new bridge
and walled sections would permit these higher speeds. These improvements altogether would reduce travel times by almost 6 (six) minutes.
The line would terminate at the VIA Rail station at Tremblay. The section from Barrhaven to Airport Parkway could be shared with a future
north-south rapid transit or regional rail line.
Toronto - Ottawa
Toronto - Ottawa
Design Decisions
Alignment Improvement Selection
Between Toronto and Ottawa, 41 alignment improvements were analyzed, with most of them located on the portion
of the system between Toronto and Perth. Each analyzed improvement was evaluated based on the projected time
it would save compared with its cost above the existing alignment.
Most alignment improvements were automatically accepted as they were found to be less expensive to build than
building over the existing alignment. For improvements that were costlier than the existing alignment, a travel time
saved per incremental dollar spent was calculated for each proposed improvement. It was found that a threshold
of at least 2 seconds saved per million dollars in incremental improvement cost would result in the entire section
achieving its travel time target of 2h10 m. Two particularly costly proposed improvements were thus rejected.
Segment Total Count Automatic Accepted Rejected
Total Added
Cost ($M)
North Toronto -
Peterborough
16 10 4 1 75.0
Peterborough-
Barrhaven
24 14 10 0 76.9
Barrhaven -
Ottawa
1 0 1 0 71.9
Trans Canada Trail vs. Highway 7 Alignment
Between Havelock and Perth, there is a long section where currently no railroad tracks exist. This poses the question:
what is the best alignment for HFR/HSR through this section?
Building new tracks along Highway 7 (136 km) would be
slightly shorter than building along the Trans Canada Trail
alignment (146 km). However, building alongside it would
prove more costly. The Highway 7 alignment is just as windy
as the Trans Canada Trail alignment and doesn’t have the
advantage of trenches and embankments having already
been built. It is not clear whether there would be a significant
speed advantage using an alignment on Highway 7 and this
would likely come with a significant cost disadvantage. In
addition, the slow difficult section along the Trans Canada
Trail has been shown to not prevent trains from travelling
between Montreal and Toronto in less than 3 hours. For these
reasons, the Trans Canada Trail alignment was selected.

Build it Right
Ottawa to Montreal
The section from Ottawa to Montreal is 177 km with almost all of the alignment existing at-grade. It is projected that
2 (two) new stations would be built, both in the Montreal Metropolitan Area. Most of the recommended alignment
follows the VIA Alexandria, CPKC Winchester and CPKC Vaudreuil subdivisions. 12.8 km of new track will be built
connecting the VIA Alexandria and CPKC Winchester subdivisions, allowing trains to travel faster between Ottawa
and Montreal.
In order to achieve a projected travel time of 50 minutes, trains will need to travel at a top speed of 320 kph for
70% of the alignment’s length. This is readily possible as the railway corridors used are mostly straight; only one
alignment improvement is needed for the entire section. This section is the most straightforward to build and should
be considered a starter line for the entire project.
The section from Ottawa to Montreal is 177 km with almost all of the alignment existing at-grade. It is projected that
2 (two) new stations would be built, both in the Montreal Metropolitan Area. Most of the recommended alignment
follows the VIA Alexandria, CPKC Winchester and CPKC Vaudreuil subdivisions. 12.8 km of new track will be built
Section Summary
Tunnel Length: 0 km
Road Relocation
Length:
0 km
# of New Grade
Separations:
85
# of Alignment
Improvements:
Length 8.79 km 2.77 km 41.8 km 125 km
Percent 4.9% 1.6% 23.4% 70.1%
connecting the VIA Alexandria and CPKC Winchester subdivisions, allowing trains to travel faster between Ottawa and Montreal.
In order to achieve a projected travel time of 50 minutes, trains will need to travel at a top speed of 320 kph for 70% of the alignment’s
length. This is readily possible as the railway corridors used are mostly straight; only one alignment improvement is needed for the entire
section. This section is the most straightforward to build and should be considered a starter line for the entire project.

Build it Right
Heading southeast from VIA Rail’s Tremblay Station, the alignment travels along the VIA Alexandria subdivision and accelerates to 320 kph.
Near the Casselman, trains would decelerate to 165 kph before accelerating back up to 320 kph.
Near Moose Creek, trains would continue southeast on a section of new track that would connect to the CPKC Winchester subdivision.
Trains would continue on a set of tracks separated from the single freight track. Walled sections would be built in Dorion, allowing trains to
continue at high speeds as they approach Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue. HFR/HSR trains would travel on dedicated tracks between the existing
CPKC and CN mainlines. Tracks would be shared with an upgraded Exo Vaudreuil Line from Dorion Station heading east.
At Saint-Anne-de-Bellevue, a new transit hub would be built connecting HFR/HSR, Exo Vaudreuil and a future extension of the REM. This
will allow passengers to travel easily to and from the West Island of Montreal. Travelling east, trains would continue on new tracks between
the mainlines to Dorval Station. Existing Exo stations along the route would be rebuilt and would have passing tracks to allow for efficient
HFR/HSR operations. Trains would accelerate up to 320 kph before decelerating near Dorval Station.
Ottawa - Montreal
At Dorval Station, a new transit hub would be built connecting intercity trains, Exo Vaudreuil and a future extension of the REM. This will
provide passengers with another convenient connection to Montreal International Airport. From Dorval, the alignment continues east and
follows the CN Montreal subdivision. Existing freight operations may need to be relocated in certain places and viaducts will need to be built
in certain sections where the corridor narrows. Trains will terminate at Gare Centrale in Downtown Montreal.

Build it Right
Ottawa - Montreal
Design Decisions
VIA Alexandria vs. CPKC Winchester
Between Moose Creek and Beaujeu, there are two possible corridors that HFR/HSR could use: the VIA Alexandria
corridor (that VIA trains currently use) and the CPKC Winchester corridor with a 12.8 km section of new track
Lucien L’Allier vs. Gare Centrale
There are two possible stations that could serve Downtown Montreal: a station at Lucien L’Allier (near the old
Gare Windsor) and Gare Central (currently used by VIA Rail).
Though Gare Centrale may seem like the obvious option, an upgraded Lucien L’Allier Station would offer
some advantages. The connection to the rest of the network would be shorter as the path to Gare Centrale is
somewhat circuitous and a connection using the CP Adirondack subdivision for a line to Quebec City would not
require a tunnel.
However, these advantages are more than offset by the station’s disadvantages. Building a station at Lucien
L’Allier would require heavy upgrading of the existing Exo station, whereas Gare Centrale is already suitable
for intercity train traffic. The deciding factor though is network connectivity. Gare Centrale is served by the
Montreal Metro’s Orange Line and will be served by the soon-to-be-opened REM, whereas Lucien L’Allier only has
a relatively circuitous connection with the Metro Orange Line. For these reasons, Gare Centrale was chosen as
the Montreal terminus for the HFR/HSR network.
Ottawa Bypass
Several HFR/HSR proposals explore the option of having a bypass of Ottawa. With this bypass, trains between
Toronto and Montreal would bypass Ottawa, following the CPKC Winchester corridor.
This report examined the time savings of this bypass justified the added cost. Using an average cost of
construction of $9.3 M/km along the CPKC Winchester corridor and a length of 106 km, it is estimated this
bypass would cost $986 M. If trains could reach a maximum speed of 320 kph for the entire length, this bypass
would save around 17 minutes in travel time. The benefit would be about 1 second saved for each $1 Million
spent using this bypass, a return far lower than the threshold for other alignment improvements. Since this
bypass is not needed to attain a travel time below 3 hours between Toronto and Montreal, it has been deemed
unnecessary.
It is clear that CPKC Winchester option is superior; it is shorter, it has fewer needed grade crossings and is much
easier to upgrade to 320 kph. In contrast, the VIA Alexandria subdivision contains 12 curves that would require
trains slowing to less than 320 kph with several of these curves preventing speeds exceeding 160 kph. Improving
the alignment along this corridor would likely be very expensive. Though the CPKC Winchester option has more
bridges, they are all quite short. Therefore, it is also likely that the CPKC Winchester option would cost less as well.
Segment VIA Alexandria CPKC Winchester
Length 55.9 km 51.1 km
Grade Crossings 25 24
Separated Crossings 2 4
Bridges 1 3
Sub 320 kph Curves 12 0
Though choosing to use the existing VIA Alexandria corridor without upgrades would be cheaper than the CPKC
Winchester option, it would be significantly slower, adding at least 12 minutes to the travel time. This would make
it difficult to meet the 1h and 3h target travel times between Ottawa and Montreal and Toronto and Montreal
respectively. Other more expensive alignment improvements would likely be required elsewhere along the corridor.
It, therefore, makes sense to use the straighter CPKC Winchester alignment.

Build it Right
Montreal to Quebec City
The section from Montreal to Quebec City is 279 km with most of the alignment at-grade. It is projected that 4 (two)
new stations would be built, two in the Montreal Metropolitan Area, one in Trois Rivieres and one at Jean Lesage
International Airport. Most of the recommended alignment follows the OGR Trois Rivieres subdivision, with small
sections along the CPKC Parc and CN Bridge Subdivision. Unlike the portion of the system between Toronto and
Montreal, only 10 trains per day will travel along this section.
In order to achieve a projected travel time of 90 minutes, trains will need to travel at a top speed of 320 kph for almost
55% of the alignment’s length. Like the section between Ottawa and Montreal, the section between Montreal and
Quebec contains many straight sections, albeit with more slow sections interspersed. This section also contains a
few tunnelled sections, one through Mount Royal and a second to access Jean Lesage International Airport.
Section Summary
Tunnel Length: 7.58 km
Road Relocation
Length:
1.26 km
# of New Grade
Separations:
195
# of Alignment
Improvements:
Length 97.6 km 18.4 km 90.0 km 200 km
Percent 18.1% 0.7% 26.6% 54.6%

Build it Right
Within the Montreal Area
From Gare Centrale, a new tunnel would be built through Mount Royal. This tunnel would be almost 5 km and would be shared with Exo
regional rail trains. Most of the tunnel would be a 12-m diameter bore that would provide passing tracks and simplify the construction of
intermediate underground stations.
The tunnel would surface south
of Parc station and the existing
station there would be upgraded.
The alignment continues northwest
along the CPKC Parc subdivision on
dedicated tracks to an upgraded De
La Concorde Station. Trains along
this section would travel no faster
than 150 kph.
From De La Concorde Station, trains
would travel northwest and then
turn northeast onto the OGR Trois
Rivieres subdivision. Trains would
accelerate up to 225 kph through
Ile-de-Jesus before decelerating to
160 kph as they traverse through
Terrebonne.
Montreal to Trois Rivieres
Upon exiting Terrebonne, trains would accelerate to 320 kph and travel at top speed for 73 kph until decelerating to 150 kph through
Louiseville. Trains would then accelerate and travel for another 17 km at 320 kph again before decelerating as they approach Trois Rivieres
Station

Build it Right
Trois Rivieres to Quebec City
From Trois Rivieres, the alignment continues north across the Sainte-Maurice River and then northeast along the OGR Trois Rivieres
subdivision. Trains would travel at 320 kph for around 16 km before decelerating to 200 kph as it rounds a hill. Trains would accelerate back
up to top speed for 30 km until reaching Port Neuf. Here trains would travel at 105 kph through sections with tight curves. The alignment
passes through another slow section through Pont-Rouge and then accelerates to top speed before decelerating as it approaches Jean
Lesage International Airport.
Within the Quebec City Area
To the south of Jean Lesage International Airport, the alignment diverges from the OGR Trois Rivieres Subdivision and enters a wye section
to access the airport. Trains would turn north onto a spur that would access the airport. The high elevation and the presence of runways
mean that the spur will have to be built in a tunnel. The southern track of the wye would be used by trains bypassing the airport.
Trains exiting Jean Lesage Airport would reverse out of the station and travel to Gare du Palais. The alignment continues east along the
OGR Trois Rivieres subdivision until the vicinity of Autoroute Robert Bourassa. Trains would enter a short cut-and-cover tunnel and then
resurface traveling northeast along the CN Bridge Subdivision. The alignment continues on dedicated tracks to Gare du Palais. The section
between Jean Lesage Airport and Gare du Palais would be shared with local rapid transit/regional rail.

Build it Right
Design Decisions
Gare Centrale Access
Connecting Montreal with Quebec City brings up the challenge
of how to navigate through or around Mount Royal to access
Gare Centrale. Two options involve trains travelling around the
mountain: one along CN’s St. Laurent Subdivision and one along
the CPKC Adirondack Subdivision with a 464-m connecting
tunnel. A third option involves building a second tunnel through
Mount Royal that would connect the Parc Subdivision and be
shared with Exo regional rail.
The CN St. Laurent Option is shorter and travel would be faster
than along the CP Adirondack Subdivision. However, the corridor
has higher traffic volumes and more upgrades would be required
to expand infrastructure such as existing overpasses. Despite
not having a tunnel, it ends up being almost as expensive as the
Second Tunnel Option.
The CP Adirondack Option has trains traverse from Gare Centrale
to the CP Adirondack Subdivision via a 464 m tunnel. It should be
noted that to ensure reliable operations, a short viaduct section
would be needed to allow passenger trains to crossover freight
traffic. Though this option would be the longest and the slowest,
it would also be the least expensive.
A Second Mount Royal Tunnel would be 5.5 km and would run
from Gare Centrale to CPKC Parc Subdivision. Not only would
this option greatly shorten trip times, but it would also avoid also
the busy CPKC Adirondack Subdivision. Construction should
be possible as the existing northern platforms at Gare Centrale
are 350 m and HFR/HSR would only require 250 m. This should
give enough room for a tunnel to navigate around the deep
foundations of skyscrapers north of Gare Centrale. However, this assumption needs to be confirmed in future,
more detailed analysis.
Option CN St. Laurent CPKC Adirondack Second Tunnel
Length 67.7 km 72.7 km 56.5 km
Travel Time 29 min 31 min 23 min
Cost $847 $604 M $863 M
It is recommended that a Second Mount Royal Tunnel be built and used by HFR/HSR and Exo trains. Though
this is the most expensive option, this would provide the shortest travel times for HFR/HSR and would provide
significant benefits for the Montreal regional rail network. However, if this option is deemed too ambitious, it is
recommended that the longer and cheaper CP Adirondack Option be implemented.
Connecting Jean Lesage Airport
Serving Jean Lesage Airport with the HFR/HSR network poses several challenges. First, the airport terminal is
located over 1 km north of the existing rail corridor. Second, it is located almost 50 m above the elevation of the
existing rail corridor. This means any rail connection to the airport will require a tunnelled section.
The first two options do not have HFR/HSR directly serving the airport. (These are the only options possible for
the proposed diesel-powered systems.) The first of these is to have an HFR/HSR along the rail alignment near
Route de l’Aeroport with a people mover connecting the station with the airport. However, this option should be
rejected. First, passengers accessing the airport would need to transfer, making their journey slower and more
inconvenient. Second, it’s not clear if there would be significant cost savings. Though a more circuitous route
might obviate the need for long tunnels, it would also be 50% longer. It would also require its own separate fleet
with its own storage and maintenance facility.
The second option is to only have the airport served by rapid transit. A new rapid transit service would be
inaugurated between YQB and Gare du Palais and would share most of its tracks with HFR/HSR. However, near
the airport, it would branch off with a mostly elevated alignment directly to the airport terminal. This option
would give passengers from Quebec City direct access to the airport and would likely be the cheapest of all the
airport access options. However, it would be more inconvenient for passengers coming from Trois Rivieres who
would now need to transfer.
The third option is to build a wye with a spur accessing the airport. This would allow HSR trains to provide
direct access to the airport as well as bypass the airport if desired. Communication-Based Train Control (CBTC)
between Jean Lesage Airport and Gare du Palais would be required as trains would need to reverse out of the
airport station. This option would cost $243 M including $100 M for the construction of an underground station.

Build it Right
Page 09 of 16 OrcShape Case Study
The fourth option is to build a new alignment through the airport site. This alignment would be around 7.4 km with
more than half of it in a tunnel. It is estimated this option would cost $397 M. Though this option would reduce
travel times by around 1.5 minutes, at less than 0.6 seconds per added million spent the time savings do not
justify the added expense. In addition, if reducing travel times between Quebec City and Montreal is vital, trains in
the Wye Option can save time by simply bypassing the airport. If it is deemed essential that intercity trains serve
YQB directly, the Wye Option is the preferred option.
Alignment Improvement Selection
Between Montreal and Quebec, 22 alignment improvements were analyzed, including the Second Mount Royal
Tunnel. A 4-second-per-million-dollars threshold was to these improvements. (This is twice the value used
between Toronto and Ottawa as half the volume of trains is expected to traverse this section.) In total, 10 (ten)
were automatically accepted, 7 (seven) produced as sufficient travel time reduction and 5 (five) were rejected.
Segment Total Count Automatic Accepted Rejected
Total Added
Cost ($M)
Gare Centrale -
Parc
1 0 1 0 78.2 (shared)
Parc - Trois
Rivieres
6 2 2 2 4.1
Trois Rivieres -
Jean Lesage
14 8 3 3 25.8
Jean Lesage -
Gare du Palais
1 0 1 0 11.0 (shared)
With the accepted alignment improvements, trains will be able to travel from Montreal to Quebec City in 86 minutes,
14 minutes faster than the target identified in Alstom’s study. Most of this time reduction can be attributed to the
Second Mount Royal Tunnel, an improvement that meets the threshold when cost sharing is factored in.
Most of the rejected improvements were slight curve broadenings that went through towns. It was determined
that the time savings were marginal compared to the added cost. It should be noted that even though the short
tunnel improvement within Quebec did not meet the time return threshold, it would still be necessary in order to
ensure dedicated operations for both HFR/HSR trains as well as Quebec City regional rail trains.

Build it Right
System Analysis
Findings and Recommendations
Analyzed Systems
For this study, three different possible systems were analyzed. All three of these systems are fairly similar in alignment but differ in terms
of infrastructure and vehicles used:
• High-Frequency Rail System (160 kph max) - This system would provide dedicated tracks that would enable more frequent service
between Toronto and Quebec City. Without grade separations, the system would be limited to 160 kph and would use diesel locomotives.
It does not contain alignment improvements that enable speeds greater than 160 kph.
• Diesel Max System System (200 kph max) - This system would contain grade separations enabling speeds greater than 160 kph but
would be limited to 200 kph - the maximum speed of diesel trains. It does not contain alignment improvements that enable speeds
greater than 200 kph.
• High-Speed Rail System (320 kph max) - This system would be electrified with high-speed rolling stock, enabling speeds up to 320
kph.
Projected Travel Times
For this study, three different possible systems were analyzed. All three of these systems are fairly similar in alignment but differ in terms
of infrastructure and vehicles used:
Origin Destination HFR Diesel Max HSR
Toronto Montreal 4h27m 3h58m 2h57m
Toronto Ottawa 3h04m 2h49m 2h07m
Toronto Peterborough 58m 52m 38m
Union Station North Toronto 13m 13m 13m
Peterborough Ottawa 2h07m 1h56m 1h28m
Ottawa Montreal 1h20m 1h06m 49m
St. Anne Gare Centrale 19m 17m 15m
Montreal Quebec City 2h16m 2h01m 86m
Montreal Trois Rivieres 1h15m 1h07m 44m
Trois Rivieres Quebec City 1h00m 54m 41m
YQB Gare du Palais 9m 9m 9m
Toronto Quebec City 6h41m 5h58m 4h24m
Operations Assumptions
HFR Diesel Max HSR
Trains per Day
Toronto - Montreal: 20
Montreal - Quebec City: 10
Station Dwell Time 1 minute
Operational Buffer 7%
Travel Time - Toronto to Montreal: 4h25m 3h56m 2h57m
Travel Time - Montreal to Quebec City: 2h16 2h01m 1h26m
Operational Fleet 13 12 9
Total Fleet 17 15 12
Operating Cost Assumptions
Amortization Term 30 years
Cost of Capital 5%
Train Cost $31 M $68 M
Annual Maintenance $0.5 M (Supplement) $2.0 M
Annualized Train Cost (including
maintenance)
$2.5 M $6.4 M
Energy Costs $1.08 per Litre $0.1 per kWh
Energy Consumption 1.4 L/km 27 kWh/km
Annual Track Maintenance (per track-km) $0.031 $0.041
Average Staff Salary $80,000
It is assumed that twice as many trains will operate per day between Toronto and Montreal than between Montreal and Quebec
City. This reflects current travel patterns. A station dwell time of 1 minute for intermediate stations was used with a 7% operational
buffer. Train fleet sizes are based on the projected cycle times with 25% spare vehicles. Rolling stock costs were calculated as an
operating cost that accounts for purchasing and maintenance. Average values within a price range or recent order figures were
used. Ontario energy prices were used as the basis for estimating electricity and fuel prices.

Build it Right
Capital Cost Summary
An HSR system would cost $10 Billion with almost 90% of this cost coming in the form of rail network civil
works. This capital cost can be reduced by over $1 Billion through cost-sharing with local rail systems. Though
an HFR system would be the least expensive, it would still require a significant capital of $6.84 Billion. A Diesel
Max system would cost almost $2 Billion more at $8.8 Billion with grade separations accounting for most of the
additional cost.
Capital Costs HFR Diesel Max HSR Full HSR Shared
Network $5.65 B $7.36 B $8.61 B $7.73 B
Station $280 M $280 M $280 M $160 M
OMC $200 M $200 M $200 M $200 M
Land Acquisition $558 M $645 M $645 M $623 M
Construction Diversions $0 M $162 M $162 M $162 M
Utility Relocation $100 M $100 M $100 M $100 M
Culverts $46 M $46 M $46 M $46 M
Wildlife Crossings $4 M $4 M $4 M $4 M
Total $6.84 B $8.80 B $10.0 B $9.02 B
Optional Capital Costs
Disruption Compensation $138 M $138 M $138 M $138 M
Freight Non-Relocation $291 M $291 M $291 M $291 M
Premium $2.14 B $1.19 B - -
Additional potential capital costs were estimated in the form of Disruption Compensation, Freight Non-Relocation
Premium and Delay Premium. The Delay Premium reflects the additional cost required when implementing HSR
after building the system in question vs. building HSR from the start and is discussed in greater detail in the “HFR
vs. HSR” section”.
Disruption Compensation is compensation that government could offer to residential or commercial property
owners in close vicinity to construction activity. Such a policy aims to reduce political risks and avoid expensive
design tradeoffs by acknowledging and compensating people for the temporary inconvenience that such a project
would bring. This study assumes a conservative level of $2 M of compensation per km of affected residential
areas.
The Freight Non-Relocation Premium is the added cost required if freight operations are not relocated. There
are several sections within the urban areas of Toronto and Montreal where the relocation of storage tracks
would greatly simplify HFR/HSR implementation. This would require coordination and negotiation with freight
railway operators. However, the cost of not doing so would be significant as additional viaducts and overpass
structures would need to be built. This study estimates that $291 M could be saved through the relocation of
freight operations.
Operating Cost Summary
Operating costs between all three systems were found to vary by 20%, with Diesel Max having the lowest
operating costs and HSR the highest. HSR has significantly higher rolling stock and track maintenance costs
as it requires vehicles that can handle the demanding technical requirements of high-speed operation. However,
this cost is somewhat offset as fewer HSR trainsets will be required due to shorter cycle times. HSR also
benefits from lower energy costs (taking advantage of the lower costs of electricity) as well as lower staffing
costs. Track maintenance is a significant expenditure for all three systems, accounting for almost half of the
operating costs in the case of Diesel Max.
Operating Costs HFR Diesel Max HSR
Train Maintenance $42.2 M $37.2 M $76.6 M
Track Maintenance $52.8 M $52.8 M $70.3 M
Energy $51.5 M $51.5 M $28.1 M
Staffing $15.7 M $14.2 M $12.8 M
Total Operating Cost $162.8 M $157.1 M $188.6 M
Total Cost Summary

Build it Right
Total Cost and Breakeven Analysis
When capital costs and operating costs are combined, it was found that an HSR system would have the highest
cost at $833 M per year and $0.13 per passenger-km. However, with cost-sharing, this would be reduced to $767
M and $0.11 per passenger-km. HFR would have the lowest total cost at $601 M and $0.09 per passenger-km
with Diesel Max at $721 M and $0.11 per passenger-km.
HFR Diesel Max HSR Full HSR Shared
Annualized Capital Cost $438 M $564 M $644 M $578 M
Operating Cost $163 M $157 M $189 M $189 M
Total Annual Cost $601 M $721 M $833 M $767 M
Cost Per Passenger-Km $0.09 $0.11 M $0.13 M $0.12 M
When looking at expected breakeven ticket prices, we see that all potential systems would be offer prices
competitive with current rail and bus service. The breakeven ticket price for HSR Shared is lower than all but the
cheapest VIA Rail ticket between Toronto and Montreal. Considering that most ticket prices are more expensive
(the median ticket price between Toronto and Montreal is $106), it is clear that if costs are kept in control, even
HSR is economically-viable between Toronto and Quebec City.
Comparable
Transit*
HFR Diesel Max HSR Full HSR Shared
Toronto -
Montreal
$58 (Rail) $52 $63 $72 $66
Toronto -
Ottawa
$54 (Rail)
$42 (Bus)
$36 $41 $50 $43
Ottawa -
Montreal
$49 (Rail)
$33 (Bus)
$16 $19 $22 $21
Montreal -
Quebec City
$42 (Rail)
$40 (Bus)
$27 $32 $35 $32
*Lowest Weekday Ticket Price
Incremental Cost Analysis
When capital costs and operating costs are combined, it was found that an HSR system would have the highest
cost at $833 M per year and $0.13 per passenger-km. However, with cost-sharing, this would be reduced to $767
M and $0.12 per passenger-km. HFR would have the lowest total cost at $601 M and $0.09 per passenger-km
with Diesel Max at $721 M and $0.11 per passenger-km.
Section From HFR to Diesel Max From Diesel Max to HSR
Toronto to Ottawa $17.96 per hour $12.67 per hour
Ottawa to Montreal $14.27 per hour $10.28 per hour
Montreal to Quebec City $22.49 per hour $4.12 per hour
It is clear for all segments that the return of upgrading from 160 kph to 200 kph is significantly lower than the
return for upgrading from 200 kph to 320 kph. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to make investments that enable
speeds higher than 160 kph without electrifying the network and enabling speeds of up to 320 kph. If HFR is to
be upgraded, it should be upgraded to 320 kph and not merely to the limits of diesel trains. A Diesel Max system
should thus be rejected as a desirable option, whether intermediate or final.

Build it Right
HFR vs. HSR
The analysis suggests that both HSR and HFR are viable options for serving Eastern Canada with
reliable passenger rail service. However, do the shorter travel times of HSR justify its higher cost? In
addition, does it make financial sense to build HFR now and then HSR at some later date?
It is difficult to make an exact comparison of both systems as important figures such as revenue and
ridership will depend on how each is priced. In the real world, HSR would likely be priced higher than
HFR and gain higher ridership. In order to simplify the comparison, this will assume almost identical
operations and ridership; the variation between the systems will be seen in their costs per passenger.
Limitations of HFR
Before we attempt to make a comparison between the two options, it is important to understand
the limitations of an HFR network compared to the projected HSR network:
• HFR will not be able to use the Second Mount Royal Tunnel as it uses Diesel-powered
locomotives. Instead, it is assumed HFR will use the CP Adirondack subdivision.
• HFR will not directly serve Jean Lesage Airport. This is a consequence of the airport station
being underground. Instead, the airport could be served by local rapid transit that would share
most of its corridor with HFR.
• HFR will not use the short tunnel within Quebec City that connects the Bridge and Trois
Riviere Subdivision alignments. Instead, HFR would use the existing track that joins the two
subdivisions and may be periodically hindered by freight operations.
HFR could be adapted to travel through these tunnels by employing dual-mode locomotives that can operate using diesel or overhead
power. However, this carries with it a significant premium and defeats one of the main reasons for using diesel-powered locomotives
which is to reduce rolling stock costs. Therefore, it is assumed that an HFR system would not operate dual-mode locomotives.
The Cost of Delay
Upgrading from HFR to HSR is not as simple as adding electrification, HSR rolling stock and improving certain sections. Currently, most
of the tracks that HFR/HSR will use are currently only lightly used which simplifies construction. That will not be the case when upgrading
the network from HFR to HSR. Temporary diversionary tracks will need to be built for certain grade separations. In addition, construction
will be slower, and thus more expensive. A premium of 50% has been added to the cost of adding electrification and grade separations to
reflect this. The Alignment Improvement Delay Premium accounts for the added cost of building an alignment improvement that will render
the previous alignment redundant overbuilding along the improved alignment from the beginning.
HFR to HSR Delay Costs Summarized
HFR to HSR Delay Costs Cost
Construction Diversions $177 M
Grade Separation Premium (50%) $776 M
Electrification Premium (50%) $475 M
Alignment Improvement Delay Premium $714 M
Total Delay Premium $2.14 B

Build it Right
Implementation Cost Analysis
The cost of delay was found to make a significant difference when assessing the suitability of implementing HFR
first and then HSR at a later date. When the Delay Premium is factored into the comparison between HFR and
HSR, the cost differential is reduced from 38% to 13%. This is well within the premium that UK passengers were
willing to pay for HSR service over conventional rail service. Therefore, if the long-term plan is to build HSR, it is
sensible to implement HSR from the beginning as opposed to phasing it in after an HFR system has been built.
HSR HFR (w/o Delay
Premium)
HFR (w/ Delay
Premium)
Total Annual Cost $833 M $601 M $739 M
Cost Per Passenger-Km $0.13 $0.09 $0.11
HSR vs. HFR Premium - 38% 13%
Recommended Phasing Approach
A phased approach where an existing conventional rail network is gradually upgraded to high-speed was
deemed to not be cost-effective in this case. However, those building and paying for HSR may not have the
resources to implement the entire project from Toronto to Quebec City simultaneously. It may be in the interests
of political leaders to produce a smaller section that proves the project’s utility to the public before investing
further. Similarly, a smaller section may be useful for helping construction firms in developing familiarity and
improve efficiency.
If a phased approach is adopted, it should be done by completing sections between major cities. The section
between Ottawa and Montreal is the most logical starting point as it is over easy terrain, relatively short, between
two major population centres and encompasses the likely location of an operations and maintenance facility.
Building between Toronto and Ottawa next would connect the two largest population centres in this project and
the section between Montreal and Quebec City should be opened last as it has the lowest projected demand and
several tunnel projects that will take longer to construct.

Build it Right
Measures to keep costs down should be a requirement before building any new passenger rail system, whether it be HFR or HSR. Billions
of dollars are at stake and it is important that they are spent wisely. Unfortunately, the cost of rail projects in North America has increased
exponentially in recent years, causing projects that would have been easily feasible in the past to be deemed as long-term ambitions.
Similar works in developed countries such as Spain, Italy and South Korea have been built at a fraction of the cost they are built in North
America. There are several policies the Federal Government could put in place that would help keep rail project costs under control. These
include:
• Developing In-House Expertise. The Federal Government should have an agency that is responsible for rail project planning and
design that does not rely on the expertise of outside consultants. It is not inherently within the interests of private entities to keep
costs down. With in-house expertise comes the ability to make sensible tradeoffs between performance and cost as well as demand
a higher standard from contractors. Where internal expertise does not exist, technology transfer agreements should be put in place so
that expertise can be grown internally.
• Valuing Technical Scoring in the Bidding Process. Bids should be highly weighted towards technical expertise as that is highly
correlated with successful project delivery. This reduces the likelihood of a party underbidding and escalating their prices after the bid
has been won.
• Employing Itemized Contracts. Contracts are tendered out knowing the quantity of each item and its agreed upon price. Price lists
with floors and ceilings help in evaluating whether a bid is realistic or not. Itemized contracts prevent change orders from causing
lengthy delays due to disagreements and litigation.
• Segmenting Projects Into Smaller Contracts. Diving a large public works project into smaller contracts helps foster competition and
creates redundancy in the case one of the contractors fails.
• Establishing a Labour Agreement for the Duration of the Project. This creates certainty when it comes to costs and construction
timelines.
• Establishing Consistent Codes and Standards for the Duration of the Project. This adds certainty and reduces the likelihood of costly
project alterations and delays.
• Generating Greater Public Awareness of the Project. Providing transparency and frequent updates helps maintain support for the
project and keeps those involved honest.
Cost Control Measures
A question that is likely on the minds of many readers is “how are the costs in this study so low?” With reports of project like California’s
High-Speed Rail system ballooning to over $160 M/km, it is reasonable to be skeptical of this study’s cost estimates and question where
this vast difference comes from.
As mentioned in the previous section, much of the staggering increasing in transit costs is a result of poor project planning, tendering and
management. If best practices are put into place, as this study envisions, costs can be reduced significantly, in some cases by over a factor
of 10.
In the case of HSR in Eastern Canada, the EcoTrains 2011 Study examined the cost of high-speed rail between Windsor and Quebec City
at a cost of $25 M/km or $18 M/km before property, planning and rolling stock costs (all figures adjusted for inflation). This is roughly twice
the cost estimate of this study. In addition, these cost estimates were made before the most egregious transit cost inflation took place in
North America.
There are several reasons for this discrepancy:
• This study puts a greater emphasis on cost reduction practices than the EcoTrains study. Even the most comparable costs on a per
unit basis are 13-45% more expensive in the EcoTrains study. Some costs, such as electrification, are assumed to cost 150% more than
what is the norm in European countries.
• This study makes key decision decisions in order to reduce costs. The most notable difference between the two studies is the
corridors used between Toronto and Montreal. The EcoTrains study assumes HSR will be built along the CN Kingston Subdivision,
a far busier, more crowded and expensive right-of-way. This means that more expensive civil works such as earthworks and grade
separations are needed. The EcoTrains study also assumes that HSR trains will be travelling at top speed for most of the length,
whereas this study assumes there will be slow sections where advantageous. It is estimated that the EcoTrains study has 69% more
grade separations per kilometre.
• Differences in Operations Assumptions. The EcoTrains studied a far longer system from Windsor to Quebec City instead of from just
Toronto to Quebec City. It also anticipated somewhat higher levels of demand. In addition, their operations anticipated longer train
turnaround times. In total, the EcoTrains study estimated a fleet of 46 trains would be required, more than 4x what this study envisions.
This contributes to both rolling stock costs and maintenance facility costs.
There are other reasons why the cost of $11 M/km determined in this study (before planning, rolling stock and property acquisitions) is not
unreasonable. The section of the LGV network between Paris and Lyon was built at a cost of $11 M/km over similarly gentle terrain. One
should not automatically assume that because some parties have managed to make building HSR incredibly expensive that it is incredible
expensive to build everywhere.
Cost Comparison with Other Studies

Build it Right
It is important to not just view HFR/HSR as an isolated project but rather as part of a greater effort to help people travel using safe,
sustainable modes of transportation. Significant savings can be achieved by sharing infrastructure with local rail services. Ridership and
the competitiveness of passenger rail can be enhanced when new connections to the local transit network are made.
Shared Infrastructure Projects
When significant infrastructure investments are made, it is essential that these investments are utilized to their fullest extent. With careful
planning and coordination, the infrastructure used by intercity passenger trains can be shared with regional rail and rapid transit rail
services.
These benefits of infrastructure sharing are not trivial. They can be the difference between an infrastructure improvement being economically
beneficial and not being viable. It is estimated that if high-speed rail infrastructure is shared with local passenger rail projects, over $1 B
can be saved.
Complementary Projects
A long-proposed second Toronto-area international airport
has been proposed a few kilometres to the east of HFR/HSR’s
proposed alignment. If this airport were built, an airport express
service would share most of its length with HFR/HSR.
Pickering Airport Express
HFR/HSR could potentially share tracks with a new Ottawa-
area rapid transit service. This service would extend north
from Barrhaven and travel north through the core of Ottawa
to Gatineau, linking with the Confederation Line at Parliament
Station. It would serve important destinations such as
Lansdowne Park, the Museum of Civilization and Billing’s
Bridge Shopping Centre. An additional spur could be built to
the airport, allowing travellers to reach Downtown Ottawa in a
single ride. HFR/HSR would share the portion of the line from
Barrhaven to Airport Parkway.
Ottawa - Gatineau
Rapid Transit
The GO Midtown Line is a proposed line that would connect Mississauga
with Scarborough via the CPKC North Toronto and Belleville Subdivisions.
It would act as an orbital regional rail route, bypassing Union Station and
linking several subway lines together. HFR/HSR could potentially share a
portion of this line as well as two stations with this proposed service.
GO Midtown Line

Build it Right
The implementation of HFR/HSR could be used as an opportunity to bring rapid transit to Quebec City. The entire length of the HFR/HSR
alignment between YQB and Gare du Palais could be shared with rapid transit services. In addition to the airport and Vieux Quebec, the rapid
transit line would serve several other important destinations such as the Colisee and Fleur-de-Lys Shopping Centre. An additional branch to
the south could be built that would serve Laval University and nearby densely-populated areas.
Quebec City Rapid Transit
The Exo Hudson-Vaudreuil Line serves communities to the west
of central Montreal, from Hudson to Lachine. The construction
of HFR/HSR would be an opportunity to upgrade regional rail
service to these communities. By sharing HFR/HSR’s dedicated
tracks, all-day, frequent and electrified service could be provided.
The utility of the line would be further enhanced with extensions
of the REM to St. Anne de Bellevue and Dorval station.
Exo Hudson-Vaudreuil
High-speed rail would share a new Mount Royal Tunnel with
Exo Regional Rail. The St. Jerome Line instead of travelling
around Mount Royal, would be electrified and rerouted to
Gare Centrale. Potentially the Mont St. Hilaire Line could be
electrified as well, introducing the possibility of combining
the St. Jerome and Mont St. Hilaire Lines into one continuous
service. (A similar action could be performed with the Exo
Vaudreuil and Mascouche Lines, however, this would require
a new tunnel joining the Mascouche Line with the St. Jerome
Line.) Sections of the regional rail routes that run on segregated
corridors could be automated.
Exo St. Jerome/
Mont St. Hilaire

Build it Right
71
Build it Right 70
Connected Projects
In addition to projects that would share infrastructure with HFR/HSR, it is also important to consider transit projects that would connect
to HFR/HSR stations. These projects could greatly increase ridership and make HFR/HSR accessible to a far greater number of people.
TTC Sheppard Line Extension
There are plans to extend the Sheppard Line east and connect with Line 2 in Scarborough. The route of this extension would cross the
alignment of HFR/HSR. It, therefore, makes sense to build a hub station between the two rail services once the subway is extended. This
would greatly enhance access to intercity rail for passengers coming from Northern Toronto and the York Region.
REM Extension - St. Anne de Bellevue
The West Island Branch of the REM could be extended from its current terminus at Anse-a-l’Orme to St. Anne de Bellevue. This extension
would provide convenient access to HFR/HSR and Exo for West Island passengers and provide transit service to CEGEP John Abbott.
REM Extension - Dorval
Similar to the REM Extension to St. Anne de Bellevue, this extension would create a new connection between HFR/HSR, Exo and REM
services. The Airport Branch of the REM would be extended to Dawson Avenue at the centre of Dorval with a station at Dorval HFR/HSR
station. This extension will improve access to YUL and allow travellers from the airport to easily board intercity and regional rail services.
Development Opportunities
Throughout history, transportation projects and real estate development have gone hand-in-hand forming a
symbiotic relationship. The case of HSR in Eastern Canada is no different where cities and neighbourhoods
access to fast, convenient rail transportation will become more desirable to live and work in. This study estimates
that seven potential station sites (North Toronto, Peterborough, Barrhaven, St. Anne de Bellevue, Dorval, Parc,
De La Concorde) would be particularly suitable sites for development. If partnerships are made with local transit
agencies, the number of potential sites would greatly increase.
Funds could be raised from development through transit improvement districts, where developers would partner
with the HSR operator and would receive density bonus privileges, and through the development of greenfield
or greyfield sites near stations. The Provincial Governments of Ontario and Quebec could grant enhanced
expropriation powers to aid with the construction of new housing near transit stations, though this would need
to be done carefully in order to prevent opportunities for abuse.

Build it Right
Final Words
Building high-speed rail in Eastern Canada would be the largest and most
transformative civil works project of a generation. It will link nearly half of this
growing nation’s population together with clean, safe and efficient transportation.
If any conclusion should be taken from this report, it is that high-speed rail is not a
pipe dream. It is not some distant fantasy that is decades away. If we design and
manage it well, the costs of building it are well within reach.
This document should not be taken as speculation on a possible future but rather
as the setting of an intention. The invitation of this document is for all Canadians,
politicians, planners and the public, to think big. We often like to pride ourselves on
our modesty, however, modesty here would be selling ourselves short.
We can build high-speed rail. We should build high-speed rail.
And we should build it now!
Thank you!

Build it Right

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (17)

Similar to Build it Right

Similar to Build it Right (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Build it Right